Factors Contributing to Quarter Life Crisis on Early Adulthood: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Farah Fadilah Hasyim,1 Hari Setyowibowo,2 Fredrick Dermawan Purba2 1Psychology Study Program, Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia; 2Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, IndonesiaCorrespondence: Farah Fadilah Hasyim, Psychology Study Program, Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia, Tel +62895803776130, Email farah22009@mail.unpad.ac.idAbstract: In this review, the causes of the Quarter Life Crisis, a prevalent phenomenon in emerging adulthood, was evaluated. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was used for this research’s systematic review. We browsed a variety of academic studies that had been published in English language, published in PubMed, Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, and Semantic Scholars that examine quarter life crisis. The literature search generated a total of 3100 publications. After removing duplicates and screening titles, abstracts, and full-text evaluation, there were 14 articles were included in the final analysis. The results were validated and examined. There were internal and external factors impacting quarter life crisis. The most powerful internal influences were commitment to purpose, spirituality, and anxiety. Meanwhile, social support, age, and gender were the most important external influences.Keywords: quarter life crisis, early adulthood, systematic literature review
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".